Client suffers weeping scalp

In August 2012, a new victim came forward, claiming to have suffered a weeping-scalp at the hands of Sam Cohen. The former IHRB client said that he saw the TV ads on TVS and called Mr Cohen. The two arranged a meeting in March 2010. The client says that Sam Cohen’s sales pitch centred around discrediting every other hair-loss company on the market. This client said that Sam Cohen spoke about the special Indian Curries that Mr Cohen claims to have discovered.

The client (let’s call him Alex, for privacy) was assured by Mr Cohen that his hair-loss condition can be fixed, and that his natural hair would grow back. Sam Cohen pointed to his many testimonials from clients (which have been found to be unverified). The sales-pitch kept revolving around, ‘You’ve got nothing to lose’, as Mr Cohen focussed on the best sales tool of all time: ‘this transaction comes with a 100% money back guarantee’. It is then alleged by Alex that a credit-card payment was made for $3,700. However, a few seconds after all the money had been paid, Sam Cohen started to circle and stamp the photos that were taken a little earlier. The stamps were warning the client that he could not expect hair to grow in the areas so marked and stamped.

Alex told me that he felt ashamed of what had happened, and he simply could not understand what Sam Cohen was doing. He challenged Sam, but he felt that it was a done-deal and that he had already paid. Alex is a business man and could not believe that he had just put himself in this position. Anyway, he let it pass, thinking that a company that advertised on TV, and that had a Pitt Street address, and that seemed to have been in business for such a long time, can’t be all that bad; so he went along with the idea of ‘You have nothing to lose’.

It is alleged that Alex specifically and carefully told Mr Cohen that he had a very sensitive scalp.

That week, Alex went to the doctor, as advised by Mr Cohen, to obtain a prescription for Minoxidil and Retin-A. Alex posted the prescription to IHRB’s office. A short time later, he received 12 bottles of the topical solutions. Three days after he started to use IHRB’s topical solution, his scalp started to weep, which means that a fluid started to ooze out of his scalp. This sounds like one of the known reactions to Minoxidil which could be dangerous, as this other former client discovered. So Alex went to his doctor, and he also advised Mr Cohen who told him to return the bottles. A new bottle arrived showing 3% Minoxidil PGX. That, too, caused weeping.

Alex told me that this went on and on for over one year of experimentation. That’s the crazy part of Sam Cohen’s methodology. He exhausts people. Mind you, Alex said that he did not sign a contract, and that no documentation ever existed at the time that he signed-up (apart from the photos that were taken). I am betting that a contract will magically appear, so watch this space.

While this was going on, IHRB and Sam Cohen were issued with a Temporary Prohibition Order. A few months later, the Permanent Prohibition Order was issued. Alex was never informed (and he should have been informed). He just kept receiving different bottles (which if they contained Minoxidil, would have been illegal to sell). By this stage, the bottles were arriving without any labels whatsoever, and were totally white, and 100% blank, so really, it is difficult to know what is in them. However, Alex has kept the bottles in a cool, dry, place, and he will offer them to the authorities for testing! If they contain Scheduled medications, and were supplied in contravention of HCCC’s Orders, it would mean that Sam Cohen would have committed a criminal offence.

After more than one year of this mess, Alex was fed-up. (His most recent bottle arrived in April 2012.) He had not had any joy from this whole mess. All he had was pain and a weeping scalp. So Alex asked Sam Cohen to terminate the arrangement, hoping that he could receive a refund. Instead, Alex said that Sam Cohen, who agreed that a long time had been wasted, would not concede that Alex’s hair did not grow. It is alleged that Sam Cohen insisted that the hair and scalp improved, and that the texture was much better. This word ‘texture’ always comes up. It is such a strange word that means many different things to many different professions. I believe that Sam Cohen uses it because he injects dyes in his formulations, which colours the hair. Alex told me that he had already stressed upon Mr Cohen that he has a sensitive scalp and that he is sensitive to dyes. Nonetheless, Mr Cohen insisted that he had done a great job, worthy of $3,700.

It is alleged that Sam Cohen wrote a note to say that, in view of the time wasted, he will issue Alex with another eight free bottles, and he wanted Alex to agree that the eight bonus bottles were given as part of the final ‘settlement’. What does that mean? Take $3,700, cause pain and suffering and inconvenience, and waste the client’s time and lose opportunities for Alex to have sought professional hair-care elsewhere while he still might have had hair follicles left? Indeed, that’s what it seems to be.

So here we have another sad story. A citizen who feels scammed and abused. The good news is that this victim is vowing to take legal action. Well done for taking a stand! This shall be another new case filled with hilarity!

Years in breach of Sanctions

As at 19 August 2015, IHRB is 3 years & 289 days (that's 1,385 days) overdue on complying with the Sanctions set by the Complaints Resolution Panel which found that IHRB's ads have been 'unlawful, misleading, and unverified'. To learn more, see the 'Days in breach' section in the menu at the top of this page.

Days in breach of TGA Orders

As at 19 August 2015, Sam Cohen and IHRB are 544 days in breach of TGA Orders that demanded that IHRB stop its misleading, deceptive, and unlawful claims and to remove its statements from its website. The TGA also Ordered IHRB to publish a retraction on its website. Despite eventually publishing the retraction, IHRB is still in breach of these TGA Orders. Such a breach constitutes a criminal offence. To learn more, see the 'Days in breach' section in the menu at the top of this page.